The World Health Organization (WHO) launched
the first Global Patient Safety Challenge in 2005 and introduced
the ‘5 moments of hand hygiene’ in 2009 in an attempt to reduce
the burden of health care associated infections. Many NHS trusts
in England adopted this model of hand hygiene, which prompts health
care workers to clean their hands at five distinct stages of caring
for the patient. Our review analyses the scientific foundation for
the five moments of hand hygiene and explores the evidence, as referenced
by WHO, to support these recommendations. We found no strong scientific
support for this regime of hand hygiene as a means of reducing health
care associated infections. Consensus-based guidelines based on
weak scientific foundations should be assessed carefully to prevent
shifting the clinical focus from more important issues and to direct
limited resources more effectively. We recommend caution in the universal adoption of the WHO ‘5
moments of hand hygiene’ by orthopaedic surgeons and other health
care workers and emphasise the need for evidence-based principles
when adopting hospital guidelines aimed at promoting excellence
in clinical practice.
Hand trauma, consisting of injuries to both the hand and the wrist, are a common injury seen worldwide. The global age-standardized incidence of hand trauma exceeds 179 per 100,000. Hand trauma may require surgical management and therefore result in significant costs to both healthcare systems and society. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common following all surgical interventions, and within hand surgery the risk of SSI is at least 5%. SSI following hand trauma surgery results in significant costs to healthcare systems with estimations of over £450 per patient. The World Health Organization (WHO) have produced international guidelines to help prevent SSIs. However, it is unclear what variability exists in the adherence to these guidelines within hand trauma. The aim is to assess compliance to the WHO global guidelines in prevention of SSI in hand trauma. This will be an international, multicentre audit comparing antimicrobial practices in hand trauma to the standards outlined by WHO. Through the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), hand surgeons across the globe will be invited to participate in the study. Consultant surgeons/associate specialists managing hand trauma and members of the multidisciplinary team will be identified at participating sites. Teams will be asked to collect data prospectively on a minimum of 20 consecutive patients. The audit will run for eight months. Data collected will include injury details, initial management, hand trauma team management, operation details, postoperative care, and antimicrobial techniques used throughout. Adherence to WHO global guidelines for SSI will be summarized using descriptive statistics across each criteria.Aims
Methods
Hand trauma accounts for one in five of emergency department attendances, with a UK incidence of over five million injuries/year and 250,000 operations/year. Surgical site infection (SSI) in hand trauma surgery leads to further interventions, poor outcomes, and prolonged recovery, but has been poorly researched. Antimicrobial sutures have been recognized by both the World Health Organization and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as potentially effective for reducing SSI. They have never been studied in hand trauma surgery: a completely different patient group and clinical pathway to previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of these sutures. Antimicrobial sutures are expensive, and further research in hand trauma is warranted before they become standard of care. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a feasibility study of antimicrobial sutures in patients undergoing hand trauma surgery to establish acceptability, compliance, and retention for a definitive trial. A two-arm, multicentre feasibility RCT of 116 adult participants with hand and wrist injuries, randomized to either antimicrobial sutures or standard sutures. Study participants and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcome measures will be recorded at baseline (preoperatively), 30 days, 90 days, and six months, and will include SSI, patient-reported outcome measures, and return to work.Aims
Methods
Deep infection was identified as a serious complication in the earliest days of total hip arthroplasty. It was identified that airborne contamination in conventional operating theatres was the major contributing factor. As progress was made in improving the engineering of operating theatres, airborne contamination was reduced. Detailed studies were carried out relating airborne contamination to deep infection rates. In a trial conducted by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC), it was found that the use of ultra-clean air (UCA) operating theatres was associated with a significant reduction in deep infection rates. Deep infection rates were further reduced by the use of a body exhaust system. The MRC trial also included a detailed microbiology study, which confirmed the relationship between airborne contamination and deep infection rates. Recent observational evidence from joint registries has shown that in contemporary practice, infection rates remain a problem, and may be getting worse. Registry observations have also called into question the value of “laminar flow” operating theatres. Observational evidence from joint registries provides very limited evidence on the efficacy of UCA operating theatres. Although there have been some changes in surgical practice in recent years, the conclusions of the MRC trial remain valid, and the use of UCA is essential in preventing deep infection. There is evidence that if UCA operating theatres are not used correctly, they may have poor microbiological performance. Current UCA operating theatres have limitations, and further research is required to update them and improve their microbiological performance in contemporary practice. Cite this article:
